Replies to This Discussion

Yeah, but . . . it isn't in the Bible. The ark landed in the "mountains of Ararat. No mention is made that the mountain was then christened, "Ararat." And though the Armenians might revere the mountain, there is no reason to believe that it was the one that some ark landed on. Considering that the Bible didn't even begin to be written until around the sixth century BCE, one wonders how they managed to keep track of it.

Any geneticist will also tell you its essentially impossible to start a stable population with only two individuals. Even an eight human being bottleneck should have wiped us off the face of the planet. At one point we supposedly only had about 10,000 human ancestors alive on the planet, and that almost did us in... so eight, wtf?

For many species the minimum viable population size is in the thousands, without human intervention. A recent study in 2007 showed that the median MVP for all terrestrial species was 4169. Granted, this will go down with human intervention (now that we understand population genetics).

In the end though, what can modern science possibly say when god gets to change all the rules of existence whenever he damn well pleases?

That still doesn't explain the population size problem, the genetic variation just isn't there. Without that variation inbreeding would kill off the species well before evolution could have any effect (even assuming the "theory" of instananeous speciation to be true the variation would not arise quickly enough). In many cases the species would die in a generation or two simply due to lack of a sufficient number of male/female offspring. Oh, crap.. all our kids were male, guess we're boned. The number of problems with this scenario is nearly infinite, and it is beyond me how anyone can possibly believe it to be true.

It's simple. 'God did it'. Clearly, in his Infinite Knowledge and Wisdom (funny how he didn't see the snake coming), genetics didn't exist until after the pairs had bred enough offspring so that genetic diversity wouldn't be a problem. Obvious, isn't it?

So basically all the different kinds must have had 100 chromosomal pairs, and each time they gave birth they reproduced in such a way that they lost a pair of chromosomes each generation? And then magically started reproducing like they do today?

"Show me evidence that 1. there's an ark on Mt. Ararat, 2. that it is from the bronze age, 3. that there was ever a global flood and 4. that every kind of animal lived within walking distance of Noah's house."

Never accept the burden of disproving a fanciful claim. If they think that they found Noah's ark, let them prove it. Never accept a self-serving claim from a religious Barnum.

How did Noah know when he had all the animals? I mean, he must have had to wait a long time for the penguins and the koalas? How did he know when he had every kind of beetle? There's like a bizzillion of those and I doubt he had an Audobon book or anything with a checklist.

If we can put a man on the moon, can plumb the depths of the deepest ocean trenches, pump oil up from 32,000 feet under the ocean... how is it we cant recover these alleged ark remnants? This foolishness hass been going of for years, these "sightings" , hoaxes, and stories.

You don't "refute" their statements, you ask for the evidence..hard evidence. Not photos of woulda-coulda-shoulda- boats, not shadows, not rock outcroppings that look like a boat. Ive already seen those, plus pictures of the True Bigfoot and movies of the alien autopsy. Please. They have no "evidence."

Itslike trying to refute the "screams from hell eminating from a drill hole in Siberia" story that appeared in tabloid rags 20 yrs ago, admitted as a made up story.. yet the extreme fundies still refer to it as though it is fact. They want it to be so...thus it is.
There is no refuting stupidity based on faith. Its "Gimme the evidence, lets submit it to scientific testing, or go fuck yer self." is my refutation.